Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Demeter
Demeter's Journal
Demeter's Journal
March 22, 2013
STAMP ACT STAMPS COURTESY OF:
http://www.arpinphilately.com/blog/what-was-the-stamp-act-of-1765/
MAKES ONE WONDER WHAT THE CYPRUS SITUATION WILL PRODUCE...
SPECIAL EXTRA! FAMOUS BIRTHDAYS OF ECCENTRIC INTEREST ON MARCH 22
Stephen Sondheim 1930 - Composer, lyricist
William Shatner 1931 - Actor
Andrew Lloyd Webber 1948 - Composer
Reese Witherspoon 1976 - Actress ("Legally Blonde"
Weekend Economists Recall Stamp Act March 22-24, 2013
STAMP ACT STAMPS COURTESY OF:
http://www.arpinphilately.com/blog/what-was-the-stamp-act-of-1765/
In an effort to raise funds to pay off debts and defend the vast new American territories won from the French in the Seven Years' War (1756-1763), the British government passed the Stamp Act on this day in 1765. The legislation levied a direct tax on all materials printed for commercial and legal use in the colonies, from newspapers and pamphlets to playing cards and dice.
Though the Stamp Act employed a strategy that was a common fundraising vehicle in England, it stirred a storm of protest in the colonies. The colonists had recently been hit with three major taxes: the Sugar Act (1764), which levied new duties on imports of textiles, wines, coffee and sugar; the Currency Act (1764), which caused a major decline in the value of the paper money used by colonists; and the Quartering Act (1765), which required colonists to provide food and lodging to British troops.
With the passing of the Stamp Act, the colonists' grumbling finally became an articulated response to what they saw as the mother country's attempt to undermine their economic strength and independence. They raised the issue of taxation without representation, and formed societies throughout the colonies to rally against the British government and nobles who sought to exploit the colonies as a source of revenue and raw materials. By October of that year, nine of the 13 colonies sent representatives to the Stamp Act Congress, at which the colonists drafted the "Declaration of Rights and Grievances," a document that railed against the autocratic policies of the mercantilist British empire.
Realizing that it actually cost more to enforce the Stamp Act in the protesting colonies than it did to abolish it, the British government repealed the tax the following year. The fracas over the Stamp Act, though, helped plant seeds for a far larger movement against the British government and the eventual battle for independence. Most important of these was the formation of the Sons of Liberty--a group of tradesmen who led anti-British protests in Boston and other seaboard cities--and other groups of wealthy landowners who came together from the across the colonies. Well after the Stamp Act was repealed, these societies continued to meet in opposition to what they saw as the abusive policies of the British empire. Out of their meetings, a growing nationalism emerged that would culminate in the fighting of the American Revolution only a decade later.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history
Though the Stamp Act employed a strategy that was a common fundraising vehicle in England, it stirred a storm of protest in the colonies. The colonists had recently been hit with three major taxes: the Sugar Act (1764), which levied new duties on imports of textiles, wines, coffee and sugar; the Currency Act (1764), which caused a major decline in the value of the paper money used by colonists; and the Quartering Act (1765), which required colonists to provide food and lodging to British troops.
With the passing of the Stamp Act, the colonists' grumbling finally became an articulated response to what they saw as the mother country's attempt to undermine their economic strength and independence. They raised the issue of taxation without representation, and formed societies throughout the colonies to rally against the British government and nobles who sought to exploit the colonies as a source of revenue and raw materials. By October of that year, nine of the 13 colonies sent representatives to the Stamp Act Congress, at which the colonists drafted the "Declaration of Rights and Grievances," a document that railed against the autocratic policies of the mercantilist British empire.
Realizing that it actually cost more to enforce the Stamp Act in the protesting colonies than it did to abolish it, the British government repealed the tax the following year. The fracas over the Stamp Act, though, helped plant seeds for a far larger movement against the British government and the eventual battle for independence. Most important of these was the formation of the Sons of Liberty--a group of tradesmen who led anti-British protests in Boston and other seaboard cities--and other groups of wealthy landowners who came together from the across the colonies. Well after the Stamp Act was repealed, these societies continued to meet in opposition to what they saw as the abusive policies of the British empire. Out of their meetings, a growing nationalism emerged that would culminate in the fighting of the American Revolution only a decade later.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history
MAKES ONE WONDER WHAT THE CYPRUS SITUATION WILL PRODUCE...
SPECIAL EXTRA! FAMOUS BIRTHDAYS OF ECCENTRIC INTEREST ON MARCH 22
Stephen Sondheim 1930 - Composer, lyricist
William Shatner 1931 - Actor
Andrew Lloyd Webber 1948 - Composer
Reese Witherspoon 1976 - Actress ("Legally Blonde"
March 22, 2013
Jonathan Ginsberg posted an interesting article on the National Association of Chapter 13 trustees web site this weekend, that will be relevant to many of our readers as well. Social security is now requiring all beneficiaries to set up direct deposit, which means the resulted funds could become available to executing creditors if there are any funds from any other source in the account as well. You might recall my blog about this some time back, which contains cites to some of the relevant law.
As my previous blog explains, Federal law provides that Social Security payments are exempt from garnishment from civil creditors. If, for example, a credit card lender sues you and obtains a judgment, that creditor cannot ask Social Security to withhold funds from your government check. While these protections do not apply with equal force to the IRS collecting a tax debt or a creditor collecting child support, all other creditors are not to touch social security funds under any circumstances.
There is however, a rub. Under the applicable law, Social Security money (SSA) that is co-mingled with non-Social Security money may lose this special protection. Here is what Jonathan Ginsberg says recipients should do:
http://www.creditslips.org/creditslips/2013/03/direct-deposit-and-social-security-not-so-nice-for-those-who-owe-part-ii.html
So just a bit more information on garnishing social security and other public benefits. Basically 42 U.S.C. § 407(a) has always precluded creditors (other than the IRS for taxes or those holding child support claims) from garnishing social security benefits (SSA) or other public benefits. As I found out when my cousin got into trouble with a credit card company, however, the banks were under no obligation to determine if the funds in a bank account that contained funds from more than one source were non-garnishable (forgive me for making up words). NCLC’s Lauren Sanders and others spearheaded the implementation of 31 C.F.R. 212.6, which provides in part:
The following provisions apply if an account review shows that a benefit agency deposited a benefit payment into an account during the lookback period.
(a) Protected amount. The financial institution shall immediately calculate and establish the protected amount for an account. The financial institution shall ensure that the account holder has full and customary access to the protected amount, which the financial institution shall not freeze in response to the garnishment order. An account holder shall have no requirement to assert any right of garnishment exemption prior to accessing the protected amount in the account.
(b) Separate protected amounts. The financial institution shall calculate and establish the protected amount separately for each account in the name of an account holder, consistent with the requirements in §212.5(f) to conduct distinct account reviews.
(c) No challenge of protection. A protected amount calculated and established by a financial institution pursuant to this section shall be conclusively considered to be exempt from garnishment under law.
(d) Funds in excess of the protected amount. For any funds in an account in excess of the protected amount, the financial institution shall follow its otherwise customary procedures for handling garnishment orders, including the freezing of funds, but consistent with paragraphs (f) and (g) of this section....
This is fabulous. It makes financial institutions responsible for figuring out which funds are available for garnishment and which are not. Big improvement! But what is it they say? Possession (of a lawyer) is 9/10th of the law? Banks do not always do what they are told. Shocking, I know. They also make mistakes. Again, shocking I know. Most people have no way of fighting back, and as esteemed reader, Wingo Smith notes, there is no private right of action following a mess-up. This is most certainly why Jonathan Ginsberg suggests that benefits recipients have a separate account (marked Social Security, for example) for their benefits, and that they nnever comingle the funds with other funds.Mess ups are less frequent and far easier to reverse and prove.
Reader Truckstop makes another point that is worth repeating. Beneficiaries can opt to receive a "Direct Express" card, which is essentially a pre-loaded debit card. The recipient can then get a cash advance, free of charge, from the teller window at any bank that accepts MasterCard. Truckstop notes that in his experience, some banks seem to think they can add a fee for this service. Spread the word, all.
IMPORTANT! MUST READ AND IMPLEMENT!
Direct Deposit and Social Security: Not so Nice for Those who Owe: Part I & Part II
http://www.creditslips.org/creditslips/2013/03/direct-deposit-and-social-security-not-so-nice-for-those-who-owe.htmlJonathan Ginsberg posted an interesting article on the National Association of Chapter 13 trustees web site this weekend, that will be relevant to many of our readers as well. Social security is now requiring all beneficiaries to set up direct deposit, which means the resulted funds could become available to executing creditors if there are any funds from any other source in the account as well. You might recall my blog about this some time back, which contains cites to some of the relevant law.
As my previous blog explains, Federal law provides that Social Security payments are exempt from garnishment from civil creditors. If, for example, a credit card lender sues you and obtains a judgment, that creditor cannot ask Social Security to withhold funds from your government check. While these protections do not apply with equal force to the IRS collecting a tax debt or a creditor collecting child support, all other creditors are not to touch social security funds under any circumstances.
There is however, a rub. Under the applicable law, Social Security money (SSA) that is co-mingled with non-Social Security money may lose this special protection. Here is what Jonathan Ginsberg says recipients should do:
"Social Security recipients can protect themselves by asking their bank to create a sub-account that holds onl y SSA issued funds. No money other than SSA funds should ever be deposited into this account. This is especially necessary if the recipient has civil judgment creditors looking for a source of funds to levy against.
In my practice, I have represented a number of senior citizen clients who are living with tens of thousands of dollars in credit card debt, have no assets or equity in property, and who survive on Social Security only. In these cases I often discourage bankruptcy and instead write each creditor advising the creditor that my client is judgment proof with no source of funds that can be garnished.
At the same time I write the credit card company, I also draft a letter to my client’s bank, putting the bank on notice that it should not honor any garnishment because the sole source of funds is Social Security money. Often, however, I find that my clients are using their “Social Security” account as a regular bank account and they deposit other money, such as funds generated from a garage sale or a gift from a relative. I spend a lot of time explaining to my client that even a few dollars of co-mingled money may jeopardize the protected status of their Social Security bank account.
Now that many more Social Security recipients are entering the electronic banking world, I expect that more than a few will find themselves trying to get money back from a judgment creditor who found a co-mingled account. Sometimes, senior citizens choose to file bankruptcy for the peace of mind benefit, but often a Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 filing is not necessary – instead many creditors and collection agencies will write off your debt and close their files if you can show that you are judgment proof. If you are receiving Social Security money, I urge you to take time now – before a judgment creditor begins collection efforts – to protect your bank accounts."
In my practice, I have represented a number of senior citizen clients who are living with tens of thousands of dollars in credit card debt, have no assets or equity in property, and who survive on Social Security only. In these cases I often discourage bankruptcy and instead write each creditor advising the creditor that my client is judgment proof with no source of funds that can be garnished.
At the same time I write the credit card company, I also draft a letter to my client’s bank, putting the bank on notice that it should not honor any garnishment because the sole source of funds is Social Security money. Often, however, I find that my clients are using their “Social Security” account as a regular bank account and they deposit other money, such as funds generated from a garage sale or a gift from a relative. I spend a lot of time explaining to my client that even a few dollars of co-mingled money may jeopardize the protected status of their Social Security bank account.
Now that many more Social Security recipients are entering the electronic banking world, I expect that more than a few will find themselves trying to get money back from a judgment creditor who found a co-mingled account. Sometimes, senior citizens choose to file bankruptcy for the peace of mind benefit, but often a Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 filing is not necessary – instead many creditors and collection agencies will write off your debt and close their files if you can show that you are judgment proof. If you are receiving Social Security money, I urge you to take time now – before a judgment creditor begins collection efforts – to protect your bank accounts."
http://www.creditslips.org/creditslips/2013/03/direct-deposit-and-social-security-not-so-nice-for-those-who-owe-part-ii.html
So just a bit more information on garnishing social security and other public benefits. Basically 42 U.S.C. § 407(a) has always precluded creditors (other than the IRS for taxes or those holding child support claims) from garnishing social security benefits (SSA) or other public benefits. As I found out when my cousin got into trouble with a credit card company, however, the banks were under no obligation to determine if the funds in a bank account that contained funds from more than one source were non-garnishable (forgive me for making up words). NCLC’s Lauren Sanders and others spearheaded the implementation of 31 C.F.R. 212.6, which provides in part:
The following provisions apply if an account review shows that a benefit agency deposited a benefit payment into an account during the lookback period.
(a) Protected amount. The financial institution shall immediately calculate and establish the protected amount for an account. The financial institution shall ensure that the account holder has full and customary access to the protected amount, which the financial institution shall not freeze in response to the garnishment order. An account holder shall have no requirement to assert any right of garnishment exemption prior to accessing the protected amount in the account.
(b) Separate protected amounts. The financial institution shall calculate and establish the protected amount separately for each account in the name of an account holder, consistent with the requirements in §212.5(f) to conduct distinct account reviews.
(c) No challenge of protection. A protected amount calculated and established by a financial institution pursuant to this section shall be conclusively considered to be exempt from garnishment under law.
(d) Funds in excess of the protected amount. For any funds in an account in excess of the protected amount, the financial institution shall follow its otherwise customary procedures for handling garnishment orders, including the freezing of funds, but consistent with paragraphs (f) and (g) of this section....
This is fabulous. It makes financial institutions responsible for figuring out which funds are available for garnishment and which are not. Big improvement! But what is it they say? Possession (of a lawyer) is 9/10th of the law? Banks do not always do what they are told. Shocking, I know. They also make mistakes. Again, shocking I know. Most people have no way of fighting back, and as esteemed reader, Wingo Smith notes, there is no private right of action following a mess-up. This is most certainly why Jonathan Ginsberg suggests that benefits recipients have a separate account (marked Social Security, for example) for their benefits, and that they nnever comingle the funds with other funds.Mess ups are less frequent and far easier to reverse and prove.
Reader Truckstop makes another point that is worth repeating. Beneficiaries can opt to receive a "Direct Express" card, which is essentially a pre-loaded debit card. The recipient can then get a cash advance, free of charge, from the teller window at any bank that accepts MasterCard. Truckstop notes that in his experience, some banks seem to think they can add a fee for this service. Spread the word, all.
IMPORTANT! MUST READ AND IMPLEMENT!
March 15, 2013
If I were to slavishly follow the calendar, this weekend we would rhapsodize on St. Patrick and Ireland and such. I'll save it for a year that seems more whimsical, or needs that spirit.
Instead, since it is still going down to single digits around Michigan at night, let's imagine we are basking in the Carribean, where temps. today are ranging between 70 and 82F and humidity is only 50%...in Cuba!
Cuba would also be the logical follow up to the death of Chavez. Chavez sought help there for his cancer. Why?
Maybe because he felt no one would try to take him out, there. The USA considered him a major impediment to our growing Corporate Kleptocracy. The relations between the US and Cuba are complicated, and worth exploring. After all, there may be another state funeral soon, with the Castro brothers both advanced in age...
Post what you have!
Weekend Economists Escape to Cuba March 15-17, 2013
If I were to slavishly follow the calendar, this weekend we would rhapsodize on St. Patrick and Ireland and such. I'll save it for a year that seems more whimsical, or needs that spirit.
Instead, since it is still going down to single digits around Michigan at night, let's imagine we are basking in the Carribean, where temps. today are ranging between 70 and 82F and humidity is only 50%...in Cuba!
Cuba would also be the logical follow up to the death of Chavez. Chavez sought help there for his cancer. Why?
Maybe because he felt no one would try to take him out, there. The USA considered him a major impediment to our growing Corporate Kleptocracy. The relations between the US and Cuba are complicated, and worth exploring. After all, there may be another state funeral soon, with the Castro brothers both advanced in age...
Post what you have!
March 14, 2013
There are three ways of defining poverty in America: the official Census Bureau method, which uses a set of income thresholds that vary by family size and composition; an experimental income-based method called the Supplemental Poverty Measure that factors in government programs designed to help people with low incomes; and a consumption-based method that measures what households actually spend. By defining poverty according to different criteria, these three methods capture surprisingly different populations of men, women and children. In a perfect world, these three methods would all tell us to do the same thing to alleviate poverty, but it’s not like that. Each method suggests a different approach toward how our government should direct its poverty-fighting resources.
According to the two income-based methods of calculation, poverty is increasing; according to the consumption-based method, it is decreasing. Confusingly, I am afraid, both the official method and the consumption method of defining poverty suggest that we should shift benefits away from the elderly and increase programs serving poor children and their families, but the Supplemental Poverty Measure, which is also income-based, does exactly the opposite. Needless to say, these three methods and their distinct outcomes have led to substantial disagreement among policy experts and social scientists. The lack of definition in our definition of poverty is part of the problem; it helps to answer the question of how the richest country in the history of the world could have so many people living in a state of deprivation. The lack of definition in our definition of poverty is part of the problem.
Let’s go over this a bit. Start with the two alternative measures of poverty based on income. The official definition was established in 1963 by the Kennedy Administration and uses as a point of reference the average dollar value of all the food needed for a week, times three. Income is calculated on a pre-tax basis including earnings, unemployment benefits, Social Security, disability, welfare, pensions, alimony and child support. The poverty threshold is set at the point at which a family would have to spend more than a third of its income on food.
The second income-based method of calculating poverty, the Supplemental Poverty Measure, is also published by the Census. It was first released in 2011. The S.P.M. adds together cash income, tax credits (in particular, the Earned Income Tax Credit, the benefit most important to the working poor), plus the value of in-kind benefits used to pay for food (food stamps), clothing, shelter and utilities, and then subtracts taxes paid, work expenses (including child care), out-of-pocket medical costs and child support paid to another household.
The differences in the results of these two income-based measures are readily apparent in Fig. 1, a chart published by the Census. The bar on the right represents the S.P.M., and the bar on the left represents the official method.
U.S. Census Bureau
The poverty rate for poor children, under the official measure, is 22.3 percent; under the S.P.M. it is only 18.1 percent. The rate of poverty for those 65 and older is 8.7 percent under the official measure, but it nearly doubles to 15.1 percent under the S.P.M. If the S.P.M. were adopted as the official measure used by government agencies to define poverty, millions of poor children would either lose, or face reductions in, benefits from means-tested programs, while millions of those over the age of 65 would qualify for government assistance....
The consumption method of measuring poverty — which was the subject, to some extent, of a column I wrote on Jan. 30 about the so called hidden prosperity of the poor — finds a substantial decline in the over-all rate of poverty, especially among the elderly. The consumption-based method, which was disparaged in an email to the Times by Shawn Fremstad of the Center for Economic and Policy Research as “not ready for prime time,” is vigorously defended by Bruce D. Meyer and James X. Sullivan, economists at the University of Chicago and Notre Dame respectively. They argue in a series of papers that both the official and supplemental methods overestimate the level of poverty among those 65-plus for two reasons: “because older Americans are more likely (than other age groups) to be spending out of savings and using assets (like homes and cars) that they own” and because the two income-based measures of calculating poverty overstate the rate of inflation. By Meyer and Sullivan’s computations, consumption poverty among those 65 and older has fallen by 83 percent since 1980 to just 3.2 percent in 2010...
Measures ignoring the family’s cost of medical care not only understate the incidence of poverty for all groups but greatly understate the poverty rates of the demographic group that has the largest average out of pocket medical expenses, the elderly. James Firman, president and C.E.O. of the National Council on Aging, told me that the official poverty measure is “grossly inadequate” because “it does not account for the 20 to 40 percent of total income that the elderly must pay out of pocket for health care, thus underestimating the poverty level among those 65 and older.” Alicia H. Munnell, director of the Boston College Center for Retirement Research, warned that many are convinced the elderly have it relatively easy because the official and most publicized poverty measure “does not take into account their high medical costs.” According to Munnell, credit card debt is rising faster among the elderly than other groups because of demands to pay growing medical fees and premiums just when higher and higher percentages of those reaching retirement age do not have defined benefit pension plans to provide support. Social Security, according to Munnell, which provides the average retired worker $15,168.36 a year, “plays a bigger and bigger role” as pensions diminish.
All three methods of measurement may undercount the poor. Kathryn Edin, a professor of public policy and management at Harvard’s Kennedy School, said in a phone interview and in a series of emails that a major problem with all three attempts to measure poverty is that the poverty level has no real empirical basis — it is not a good measure of how much it takes to survive nor is it a relative measure meant to reflect what is required for social inclusion in the society. The poverty level is most certainly too low. Most people can’t actually live on incomes that hover around the poverty threshold.
MUCH MORE STICKY WICKET AT LINK
Who Is Poor? By THOMAS B. EDSALL
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/13/who-is-poor/There are three ways of defining poverty in America: the official Census Bureau method, which uses a set of income thresholds that vary by family size and composition; an experimental income-based method called the Supplemental Poverty Measure that factors in government programs designed to help people with low incomes; and a consumption-based method that measures what households actually spend. By defining poverty according to different criteria, these three methods capture surprisingly different populations of men, women and children. In a perfect world, these three methods would all tell us to do the same thing to alleviate poverty, but it’s not like that. Each method suggests a different approach toward how our government should direct its poverty-fighting resources.
According to the two income-based methods of calculation, poverty is increasing; according to the consumption-based method, it is decreasing. Confusingly, I am afraid, both the official method and the consumption method of defining poverty suggest that we should shift benefits away from the elderly and increase programs serving poor children and their families, but the Supplemental Poverty Measure, which is also income-based, does exactly the opposite. Needless to say, these three methods and their distinct outcomes have led to substantial disagreement among policy experts and social scientists. The lack of definition in our definition of poverty is part of the problem; it helps to answer the question of how the richest country in the history of the world could have so many people living in a state of deprivation. The lack of definition in our definition of poverty is part of the problem.
The differences in the results of these two income-based measures are readily apparent in Fig. 1, a chart published by the Census. The bar on the right represents the S.P.M., and the bar on the left represents the official method.
U.S. Census Bureau
The poverty rate for poor children, under the official measure, is 22.3 percent; under the S.P.M. it is only 18.1 percent. The rate of poverty for those 65 and older is 8.7 percent under the official measure, but it nearly doubles to 15.1 percent under the S.P.M. If the S.P.M. were adopted as the official measure used by government agencies to define poverty, millions of poor children would either lose, or face reductions in, benefits from means-tested programs, while millions of those over the age of 65 would qualify for government assistance....
Measures ignoring the family’s cost of medical care not only understate the incidence of poverty for all groups but greatly understate the poverty rates of the demographic group that has the largest average out of pocket medical expenses, the elderly. James Firman, president and C.E.O. of the National Council on Aging, told me that the official poverty measure is “grossly inadequate” because “it does not account for the 20 to 40 percent of total income that the elderly must pay out of pocket for health care, thus underestimating the poverty level among those 65 and older.” Alicia H. Munnell, director of the Boston College Center for Retirement Research, warned that many are convinced the elderly have it relatively easy because the official and most publicized poverty measure “does not take into account their high medical costs.” According to Munnell, credit card debt is rising faster among the elderly than other groups because of demands to pay growing medical fees and premiums just when higher and higher percentages of those reaching retirement age do not have defined benefit pension plans to provide support. Social Security, according to Munnell, which provides the average retired worker $15,168.36 a year, “plays a bigger and bigger role” as pensions diminish.
All three methods of measurement may undercount the poor. Kathryn Edin, a professor of public policy and management at Harvard’s Kennedy School, said in a phone interview and in a series of emails that a major problem with all three attempts to measure poverty is that the poverty level has no real empirical basis — it is not a good measure of how much it takes to survive nor is it a relative measure meant to reflect what is required for social inclusion in the society. The poverty level is most certainly too low. Most people can’t actually live on incomes that hover around the poverty threshold.
MUCH MORE STICKY WICKET AT LINK
March 13, 2013
(The Borowitz Report)—In a possible setback for the Administration’s controversial drone policy, a new poll conducted by the University of Minnesota shows that a broad majority of Americans are opposed to being killed by a drone strike on U.S. soil.
The poll, which has a margin of error of plus or minus five percentage points, showed that ninety-seven per cent of those surveyed “strongly agreed” with the statement, “I personally do not want to be killed by a drone,” with three per cent responding, “Don’t know/No opinion.”
“There’s no other way to interpret these numbers,” said the University of Minnesota’s Davis Logsdon, who oversaw the survey. “The idea of being killed by a drone is not playing well out there.”
Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2013/03/poll-majority-of-americans-opposed-to-being-killed-by-drone.html#ixzz2NRuEsQfd
Poll: Majority of Americans Opposed to Being Killed by Drone BY ANDY BOROWITZ, SATIRIST
(The Borowitz Report)—In a possible setback for the Administration’s controversial drone policy, a new poll conducted by the University of Minnesota shows that a broad majority of Americans are opposed to being killed by a drone strike on U.S. soil.
The poll, which has a margin of error of plus or minus five percentage points, showed that ninety-seven per cent of those surveyed “strongly agreed” with the statement, “I personally do not want to be killed by a drone,” with three per cent responding, “Don’t know/No opinion.”
“There’s no other way to interpret these numbers,” said the University of Minnesota’s Davis Logsdon, who oversaw the survey. “The idea of being killed by a drone is not playing well out there.”
Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2013/03/poll-majority-of-americans-opposed-to-being-killed-by-drone.html#ixzz2NRuEsQfd
March 12, 2013
Shocking New Evidence Reveals Depths of 'Treason' and 'Treachery' of Watergate and Iran-Contra
THAT WAS FAST...HOW LONG BEFORE WE FINALLY GET THE TRUTH ABOUT KENNEDY, AND 9/11?
http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/shocking-new-evidence-reveals-depths-treason-and-treachery-watergate-and-iran?paging=off
MUST READ IN ITS ENTIRETY
March 11, 2013
Since the mortgage meltdown, the FDIC has opted to settle cases while helping banks avoid bad press, rather than trumpeting punitive actions as a deterrent to others...Deutsche Bank, now the world's largest, settled with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. to resolve claims that subsidiary MortgageIT sold shaky loans to IndyMac Bank, which imploded under the weight of risky mortgages and construction loans. The FDIC collected $54 million from the settlement three years ago but never issued a news release to announce it...The deal might have made big headlines, given that the bad loans contributed to the largest payout in FDIC history, $13 billion. But the government cut a deal with the bank's lawyers to keep it quiet: a "no press release" clause that required the FDIC never to mention the deal "except in response to a specific inquiry." The FDIC has handled scores of settlements the same way since the mortgage meltdown, a major policy shift from previous crises, when the FDIC trumpeted punitive actions against banks as a deterrent to others.
Since 2007, 471 U.S. banks have failed, nearly depleting the FDIC deposit-insurance fund with $92.5 billion in losses. Rather than sue, the agency has typically preferred to settle for a fraction of the losses while helping the banks avoid bad press. Under the Freedom of Information Act, The Times obtained more than 1,600 pages of FDIC settlements, made from 2007 through this year with former bank insiders and others accused of wrongdoing. The agreements constitute a catalog of fraud and negligence: reckless loans to homeowners and builders; falsified documents; inflated appraisals; lender refusals to buy back bad loans. Defendants benefit by settling because they can avoid admitting guilt and limit the damages they might face in court. The FDIC benefits by collecting money without the hassle and expense of litigation. The no-press-release arrangements help close those deals...Seeking to recover deposit-insurance losses, the FDIC has dealt mainly with smaller institutions that failed, unlike the big banks that were bailed out...Critics fault the government for going easy on banks in the aftermath of the financial crisis. At a Feb. 14 hearing, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), founder of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, criticized FDIC Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg along with other bank regulators for their reluctance to make examples of Wall Street firms by taking them to trial.
Attorneys who have represented bank officials and the FDIC said regulators are now far likelier to settle cases before filing lawsuits than after the last spate of failures, when more than 2,300 institutions collapsed in the 1980s and early 1990s, bankrupting a fund that insured savings and loan deposits. That crisis grew out of Reagan-era deregulation, which allowed thrifts already hurting from 1970s inflation to make riskier investments, including commercial real estate deals that soured en masse during the second half of the 1980s. Critics describe the FDIC's current practice of low-profile deal-making as a major departure from the S&L crisis.
Barr says attorneys representing the FDIC make clear to the defendants that, although it will not publicize settlements, it also cannot legally keep them secret.
The ban on secret settlements was a provision in one of the laws passed after the S&L crisis. Although the measure doesn't require the FDIC to call attention to settlements, nondisclosure agreements like that with Deutsche Bank violate "the spirit of the law," said Sausalito, Calif., attorney Bart Dzivi, a former Senate Banking Committee aide who drafted the provision.
MORE NAUSEA AT LINK
AHA! In major policy shift, scores of FDIC settlements go unannounced
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-fdic-settlements-20130311,0,3871291.storySince the mortgage meltdown, the FDIC has opted to settle cases while helping banks avoid bad press, rather than trumpeting punitive actions as a deterrent to others...Deutsche Bank, now the world's largest, settled with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. to resolve claims that subsidiary MortgageIT sold shaky loans to IndyMac Bank, which imploded under the weight of risky mortgages and construction loans. The FDIC collected $54 million from the settlement three years ago but never issued a news release to announce it...The deal might have made big headlines, given that the bad loans contributed to the largest payout in FDIC history, $13 billion. But the government cut a deal with the bank's lawyers to keep it quiet: a "no press release" clause that required the FDIC never to mention the deal "except in response to a specific inquiry." The FDIC has handled scores of settlements the same way since the mortgage meltdown, a major policy shift from previous crises, when the FDIC trumpeted punitive actions against banks as a deterrent to others.
Since 2007, 471 U.S. banks have failed, nearly depleting the FDIC deposit-insurance fund with $92.5 billion in losses. Rather than sue, the agency has typically preferred to settle for a fraction of the losses while helping the banks avoid bad press. Under the Freedom of Information Act, The Times obtained more than 1,600 pages of FDIC settlements, made from 2007 through this year with former bank insiders and others accused of wrongdoing. The agreements constitute a catalog of fraud and negligence: reckless loans to homeowners and builders; falsified documents; inflated appraisals; lender refusals to buy back bad loans. Defendants benefit by settling because they can avoid admitting guilt and limit the damages they might face in court. The FDIC benefits by collecting money without the hassle and expense of litigation. The no-press-release arrangements help close those deals...Seeking to recover deposit-insurance losses, the FDIC has dealt mainly with smaller institutions that failed, unlike the big banks that were bailed out...Critics fault the government for going easy on banks in the aftermath of the financial crisis. At a Feb. 14 hearing, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), founder of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, criticized FDIC Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg along with other bank regulators for their reluctance to make examples of Wall Street firms by taking them to trial.
Attorneys who have represented bank officials and the FDIC said regulators are now far likelier to settle cases before filing lawsuits than after the last spate of failures, when more than 2,300 institutions collapsed in the 1980s and early 1990s, bankrupting a fund that insured savings and loan deposits. That crisis grew out of Reagan-era deregulation, which allowed thrifts already hurting from 1970s inflation to make riskier investments, including commercial real estate deals that soured en masse during the second half of the 1980s. Critics describe the FDIC's current practice of low-profile deal-making as a major departure from the S&L crisis.
"In the old days, the regulators made it a point to embarrass everyone, to call attention to their role in bank failures," said former bank examiner Richard Newsom, who specialized in insider-abuse cases for the FDIC in the aftermath of the S&L debacle. The goal was simple: "to make other bankers scared." Newsom said he couldn't understand the shift, unless the agency doesn't "want people to know how little they are settling for."
Barr says attorneys representing the FDIC make clear to the defendants that, although it will not publicize settlements, it also cannot legally keep them secret.
The ban on secret settlements was a provision in one of the laws passed after the S&L crisis. Although the measure doesn't require the FDIC to call attention to settlements, nondisclosure agreements like that with Deutsche Bank violate "the spirit of the law," said Sausalito, Calif., attorney Bart Dzivi, a former Senate Banking Committee aide who drafted the provision.
MORE NAUSEA AT LINK
March 11, 2013
The President loves poker. In fact his days as an Illinois state senator were filled with backroom...poker games. Word was that Barack could bluff with the best of them--and never blink. These dubious talents have served him well during his meteoric rise ...all the way to the Oval Office. Unfortunately, we now find ourselves as a nation stuck in a game of legislative 'chicken,' and the stakes couldn't be higher.
Sequester aka...Extreme Poker...
President Obama and Congress are both playing 'extreme' poker, (much like testosterone-driven teen-age boys playing 'extreme' skateboarding sans helmet)—only with the budget and our futures. They are using the nuclear option of the sequester as the ultimate test of their cohunes—treating the US citizenry the same way a mangy dog lifts his leg to 'water' the plants.
Congressional leaders and Obama himself are quite aware of the savage economic violence the sequester or automatic spending cuts will cause—but this fight isn't about responsible budgeting--it's about raw, naked power more akin to an addiction than any legitimate concerns. The sequesters origins trace back to the 1985 'Gramm-Rudman' budget law, continue with Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles of the Simpson-Bowles Commission all the way to the present day—while frantically maintaining the echo chamber from the Peterson Foundation funded Astroturf front group—Fix the Debt—waiting in the wings with a 'final solution.'
The history of the 'sequester' or automatic spending trigger…ENDLESS DOCUMENTATION AT LINK
Conclusion:
This austerity mess, disguised as 'fiscal medicine' in 2013, is brought to us from the good people at 'Fix the Debt.' The president and both parties in Congress have unilaterally surrendered their authority by passing the 2011 Budget Act which was engineered to have the very spending cut trigger the billionaire class demanded—especially Pete Peterson. The sequester trigger was designed to be such an egregious non-starter, that the people would accept the Simpson-Bowles austerity plan, in order to save other budget items like education—while leaving the military-industrial-complex budget intact—along with the negative tax balances of these same corporations belonging to—'Fix the Debt.'
Congress acquiesced to the demands of the post-modern robber barons. The Simpson-Bowles Commission would have succeeded in using the sequester as a tactical maneuver to push virtual dismantling of the social contract, especially Social Security and Medicare—with the exception of some crazy, recalcitrant GOP congressmen failing to cry 'uncle'—to their game of fiscal 'chicken.'
The fact that the fiscal disaster was caused by a toxic mixture of massive corporate fraud in the investment sector, (via exotic instruments such as derivatives), even more massive corporate tax evasion, and a wholesale continual outsourcing of jobs worldwide—is a mere triviality to Dems and the GOP. On top of this premeditated fiscal treason is a set of economic theories based on even bigger lies. The 'inconvenient truth' of the sequester lies in the fact that our government is controlled by a handful of oligarchic billionaires who like Caesar, are never quenched in terms of their greed. The Obama Justice Department has refused to criminally prosecute the Wall Street thieves for obvious fraud, declaring the banksters as 'too big to fail,' aristocrats. The attack on the same social contract funded by OUR payroll taxes—has truly been bipartisan and representative of our bogus '2-party' system—a spit away from a banana republic.
The rule of law is dependent on a sense of justice or fairness. When the arbitrary and capricious law of man replaces the rule of law—our system becomes illegitimate. The only way to save us now—is to copy the French—and storm the streets. Otherwise, the nation's birthday present for 2013...courtesy of 'Fix the Debt', will be perpetual economic feudalism. The Peterson toadies will fulfill their goal, achieving..."a Simpson-Bowles style "grand bargain" on an austerity agenda for the United States by the nation's 237th birthday on July 4, 2013."
Happy birthday to us.
Sequester, the Ultimate Poker Game...Only the Rich Can Win... By Jeanine Molloff
http://www.nationofchange.org/sequester-ultimate-poker-gameonly-rich-can-win-1362755286The President loves poker. In fact his days as an Illinois state senator were filled with backroom...poker games. Word was that Barack could bluff with the best of them--and never blink. These dubious talents have served him well during his meteoric rise ...all the way to the Oval Office. Unfortunately, we now find ourselves as a nation stuck in a game of legislative 'chicken,' and the stakes couldn't be higher.
Sequester aka...Extreme Poker...
President Obama and Congress are both playing 'extreme' poker, (much like testosterone-driven teen-age boys playing 'extreme' skateboarding sans helmet)—only with the budget and our futures. They are using the nuclear option of the sequester as the ultimate test of their cohunes—treating the US citizenry the same way a mangy dog lifts his leg to 'water' the plants.
Congressional leaders and Obama himself are quite aware of the savage economic violence the sequester or automatic spending cuts will cause—but this fight isn't about responsible budgeting--it's about raw, naked power more akin to an addiction than any legitimate concerns. The sequesters origins trace back to the 1985 'Gramm-Rudman' budget law, continue with Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles of the Simpson-Bowles Commission all the way to the present day—while frantically maintaining the echo chamber from the Peterson Foundation funded Astroturf front group—Fix the Debt—waiting in the wings with a 'final solution.'
The history of the 'sequester' or automatic spending trigger…ENDLESS DOCUMENTATION AT LINK
Conclusion:
This austerity mess, disguised as 'fiscal medicine' in 2013, is brought to us from the good people at 'Fix the Debt.' The president and both parties in Congress have unilaterally surrendered their authority by passing the 2011 Budget Act which was engineered to have the very spending cut trigger the billionaire class demanded—especially Pete Peterson. The sequester trigger was designed to be such an egregious non-starter, that the people would accept the Simpson-Bowles austerity plan, in order to save other budget items like education—while leaving the military-industrial-complex budget intact—along with the negative tax balances of these same corporations belonging to—'Fix the Debt.'
Congress acquiesced to the demands of the post-modern robber barons. The Simpson-Bowles Commission would have succeeded in using the sequester as a tactical maneuver to push virtual dismantling of the social contract, especially Social Security and Medicare—with the exception of some crazy, recalcitrant GOP congressmen failing to cry 'uncle'—to their game of fiscal 'chicken.'
The fact that the fiscal disaster was caused by a toxic mixture of massive corporate fraud in the investment sector, (via exotic instruments such as derivatives), even more massive corporate tax evasion, and a wholesale continual outsourcing of jobs worldwide—is a mere triviality to Dems and the GOP. On top of this premeditated fiscal treason is a set of economic theories based on even bigger lies. The 'inconvenient truth' of the sequester lies in the fact that our government is controlled by a handful of oligarchic billionaires who like Caesar, are never quenched in terms of their greed. The Obama Justice Department has refused to criminally prosecute the Wall Street thieves for obvious fraud, declaring the banksters as 'too big to fail,' aristocrats. The attack on the same social contract funded by OUR payroll taxes—has truly been bipartisan and representative of our bogus '2-party' system—a spit away from a banana republic.
The rule of law is dependent on a sense of justice or fairness. When the arbitrary and capricious law of man replaces the rule of law—our system becomes illegitimate. The only way to save us now—is to copy the French—and storm the streets. Otherwise, the nation's birthday present for 2013...courtesy of 'Fix the Debt', will be perpetual economic feudalism. The Peterson toadies will fulfill their goal, achieving..."a Simpson-Bowles style "grand bargain" on an austerity agenda for the United States by the nation's 237th birthday on July 4, 2013."
Happy birthday to us.
March 11, 2013
Comedian Beppe Grillo was surprised himself when his Five Star Movement got 8.7 million votes in the Italian general election of February 24-25. His movement is now the biggest single party in the chamber of deputies, says The Guardian, which makes him "a kingmaker in a hung parliament."
Grillo's is the party of "no." In a candidacy based on satire, he organized an annual "V Day Celebration" - the "V" stands for vaffanculo (f - k off). He rejects the status quo - all the existing parties and their monopoly control of politics, jobs and financing - and seeks a referendum on all international treaties, including NATO membership, free trade agreements and the Euro.
"If we get into parliament," says Grillo, "we would bring the old system down, not because we would enjoy doing so, but because the system is rotten." Critics fear, and supporters hope, that if his party succeeds, it could break the euro system.
But being against everything, says Mike Whitney in Counterpunch, is not a platform:
Steve Colatrella, who lives in Italy and also has an article in Counterpunch on the Grillo phenomenon, has a different take on the surprise win. He says Grillo does have a platform of positive proposals. Besides rejecting all the existing parties and treaties, Grillo's program includes the following:
Unilateral default on the public debt
Nationalization of the banks
A guaranteed "citizenship" income of 1000 euros a month
It is a platform that could actually work. Austerity has been tested for a decade in the eurozone and has failed, while the proposals in Grillo's plan have been tested in other countries and have succeeded...
QE for the People: Comedian Beppe Grillo's Populist Plan for Italy
http://truth-out.org/news/item/14953-qe-for-the-people-comedian-beppe-grillos-populist-plan-for-italyComedian Beppe Grillo was surprised himself when his Five Star Movement got 8.7 million votes in the Italian general election of February 24-25. His movement is now the biggest single party in the chamber of deputies, says The Guardian, which makes him "a kingmaker in a hung parliament."
Grillo's is the party of "no." In a candidacy based on satire, he organized an annual "V Day Celebration" - the "V" stands for vaffanculo (f - k off). He rejects the status quo - all the existing parties and their monopoly control of politics, jobs and financing - and seeks a referendum on all international treaties, including NATO membership, free trade agreements and the Euro.
"If we get into parliament," says Grillo, "we would bring the old system down, not because we would enjoy doing so, but because the system is rotten." Critics fear, and supporters hope, that if his party succeeds, it could break the euro system.
But being against everything, says Mike Whitney in Counterpunch, is not a platform:
To govern, one needs ideas and a strategy for implementing those ideas. Grillo's team has neither. They are defined more in terms of the things they are against than things they are for. It's fine to want to "throw the bums out," but that won't put people back to work or boost growth or end the slump. Without a coherent plan to govern, M5S could end up in the political trash heap, along with their right-wing predecessors, the Tea Party.
Steve Colatrella, who lives in Italy and also has an article in Counterpunch on the Grillo phenomenon, has a different take on the surprise win. He says Grillo does have a platform of positive proposals. Besides rejecting all the existing parties and treaties, Grillo's program includes the following:
It is a platform that could actually work. Austerity has been tested for a decade in the eurozone and has failed, while the proposals in Grillo's plan have been tested in other countries and have succeeded...
March 9, 2013
The “crisis” we are facing, what this week we’re calling “the sequester,” is an illusion sustained by a compliant media who dutifully parrot choreographed memes and metaphorical names while otherwise remaining asleep at the wheel. There is no phenomenon either in the natural world or in the history of our economic structures that goes by the name “the sequester.” There is no hurricane or typhoon blowing through our economy. There is no earthquake shaking the foundations of our monetary system. There is no landslide threatening to bury us and no wildfire about to incinerate us. Godzilla is not about to destroy Tokyo. Mothra is not real. There is no “sequester.”
Code Orange
“The sequester,” like “the fiscal cliff” and the recurring “debt ceiling,” is an intentionally crafted, make-believe crisis. Climate change and nuclear proliferation, in contrast, are bona fide crises—meaning they pose grave threats and defy easy solutions. By comparison, we can easily cancel make-believe sequesters, cliffs, and ceilings and get on with the business of governing the country. If the deficit really needs immediate attention, the simplest and quickest fix would be to roll back a few of the massive tax cuts we’ve gifted to the richest Americans, so that those who have benefitted the most from our economic system can pick up the tab for some of its operating expenses.
That’s if we really had a deficit emergency. But we don’t.
The sequester, like the cliffs and ceilings, is this decade’s terrorism threat level—Code Orange. Be scared. Be very scared. And stop thinking for yourself. The effects of the sequester, the cliffs and the ceiling, however, are real. Unlike terrorism, where the threat is external and unpredictable, the sequester is predictable and the culprits are our own leaders.
This thing we call the sequester is an automatic, $85 billion, mid-budget, across-the-board federal reimbursement cut created by a previous act of Congress to tick like a bomb and finally go off last Friday. Once unleashed, it started snaking its way through government agencies like a freshly released contagion, creating operating budget deficits and degrading public services in an almost random fashion. When it completes its work, the sequester will not only have cut services but perhaps a million jobs as well, further depressing the wage floor for those left working...
RIGHTEOUS RANT! MORE AT LINK
Sequester This! A Story of Sabotage and Theft
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/15008-sequester-this-a-story-of-sabotage-and-theftThe “crisis” we are facing, what this week we’re calling “the sequester,” is an illusion sustained by a compliant media who dutifully parrot choreographed memes and metaphorical names while otherwise remaining asleep at the wheel. There is no phenomenon either in the natural world or in the history of our economic structures that goes by the name “the sequester.” There is no hurricane or typhoon blowing through our economy. There is no earthquake shaking the foundations of our monetary system. There is no landslide threatening to bury us and no wildfire about to incinerate us. Godzilla is not about to destroy Tokyo. Mothra is not real. There is no “sequester.”
Code Orange
“The sequester,” like “the fiscal cliff” and the recurring “debt ceiling,” is an intentionally crafted, make-believe crisis. Climate change and nuclear proliferation, in contrast, are bona fide crises—meaning they pose grave threats and defy easy solutions. By comparison, we can easily cancel make-believe sequesters, cliffs, and ceilings and get on with the business of governing the country. If the deficit really needs immediate attention, the simplest and quickest fix would be to roll back a few of the massive tax cuts we’ve gifted to the richest Americans, so that those who have benefitted the most from our economic system can pick up the tab for some of its operating expenses.
That’s if we really had a deficit emergency. But we don’t.
The sequester, like the cliffs and ceilings, is this decade’s terrorism threat level—Code Orange. Be scared. Be very scared. And stop thinking for yourself. The effects of the sequester, the cliffs and the ceiling, however, are real. Unlike terrorism, where the threat is external and unpredictable, the sequester is predictable and the culprits are our own leaders.
This thing we call the sequester is an automatic, $85 billion, mid-budget, across-the-board federal reimbursement cut created by a previous act of Congress to tick like a bomb and finally go off last Friday. Once unleashed, it started snaking its way through government agencies like a freshly released contagion, creating operating budget deficits and degrading public services in an almost random fashion. When it completes its work, the sequester will not only have cut services but perhaps a million jobs as well, further depressing the wage floor for those left working...
RIGHTEOUS RANT! MORE AT LINK
Profile Information
Gender: FemaleHometown: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Home country: USA
Member since: Thu Sep 25, 2003, 02:04 PM
Number of posts: 85,373